The Penghu gambling referendum on Sept. 26, 2009, is the only referendum that has been passed since the legislature enacted the Referendum Act (公民投票法) in 2003, even though for all practical purposes this particular referendum is not actually applicable to the act. This is an ironic outcome, especially in light of the fact that, at the same time, a social movement launched a referendum demanding that the government renegotiate a beef trade deal with the US. The referendum proposal was eventually killed by the excessively high threshold in the second stage of petitioning, while the Taiwan Solidarity Union’s referendum on the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) was annihilated in the review process by the Cabinet’s Referendum Commission. Time and again, it has been proven that the Referendum Act is a dead end.
How do we solve this seemingly unsolvable issue? Amending the Referendum Act is one possible route. The double threshold for petitioning must be lowered, doing away with limitations on the number of votes needed to pass, and making sure the Referendum Commission returns to procedural inspections only. Moreover, the government should help in the process of reviewing and accepting referendums. These proposals do not usually cause dispute, yet they are unable to gain traction in the legislature. The biggest problem is not in the legislation itself, but rather in how Taiwanese independence----unification politics are declared and represented.
Besides referendums being bound directly to general elections and disputes over the president initiating politically manipulated defensive referendums, referendums and the issue of self-determination have overlapped since the Referendum Act was passed. Hence, the debate over referendums is typically not conducted in the context of strengthening the democratic system. Instead of asking how referendums can mend the inefficiencies of representative democracy, the question is how referendums can speed up the development of Taiwanese independence. Isn’t the performance of the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) a conspicuous warning?
Unrestrained dualistic -unification-independence hostilities are nothing new in the history of Taiwan’s democracy. Unification-independence politics have been acted out upon the political stage to stifle democracy, such as a debate over the direct election of the president, or a plan to disenfranchise districts in national elections. The outcome is that Ma, who is shifting the focus from independence to unification, can win a landslide victory in direct presidential elections and the reactionaries who advocated indirect elections have become the beneficiaries of direct elections.
Therefore, in amending the Referendum Act, we must return to popular self-government as a core value, allowing the Referendum Act to provide referendums that are for the public and focus on public policy, so that Taiwan’s referendum democracy can develop and offer relief to a representative democracy that is becoming inept. This sort of bottom-up philosophy will inevitably abolish the rights of the president and the legislature to initiate referendums, reducing and limiting politicians’ ability to manipulate politics, and it will serve to expand the freedom and will of the public to initiate referendums. All of these things must occur to finally avoid the use of unification-independence discourse to smother Taiwan’s democracy.
Hsu Yung-ming is an assistant professor of political science at Soochow University.
Translated by Kyle Jeffcoat
Taiwan’s fall would be “a disaster for American interests,” US President Donald Trump’s nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy Elbridge Colby said at his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday last week, as he warned of the “dramatic deterioration of military balance” in the western Pacific. The Republic of China (Taiwan) is indeed facing a unique and acute threat from the Chinese Communist Party’s rising military adventurism, which is why Taiwan has been bolstering its defenses. As US Senator Tom Cotton rightly pointed out in the same hearing, “[although] Taiwan’s defense spending is still inadequate ... [it] has been trending upwards
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
In an eloquently written piece published on Sunday, French-Taiwanese education and policy consultant Ninon Godefroy presents an interesting take on the Taiwanese character, as viewed from the eyes of an — at least partial — outsider. She muses that the non-assuming and quiet efficiency of a particularly Taiwanese approach to life and work is behind the global success stories of two very different Taiwanese institutions: Din Tai Fung and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). Godefroy said that it is this “humble” approach that endears the nation to visitors, over and above any big ticket attractions that other countries may have
A media report has suggested that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was considering initiating a vote of no confidence in Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) in a bid to “bring down the Cabinet.” The KMT has denied that this topic was ever discussed. Why might such a move have even be considered? It would have been absurd if it had seen the light of day — potentially leading to a mass loss of legislative seats for the KMT even without the recall petitions already under way. Today the second phase of the recall movement is to begin — which has
RSS